Polri Respects Constitutional Court Ruling to Amend Obstruction Clause in Corruption Investigation Proceedings

The Constitutional Court (MK) has changed the phrase ‘directly or indirectly’ in Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption, which had the potential to become a rubber provision. The decision was read during the Court’s ruling in case No. 71/PUU-XXIII/2025 brought by Hermawanto at the MK building on Monday (2/3). Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Act states: ‘Every person who intentionally prevents, obstructs, or thwarts directly or indirectly the investigation, prosecution, and examination in court proceedings against suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases, shall be punished with a minimum of 3 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of 12 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of at least Rp150,000,000 and up to Rp600,000,000.’ The Court said the acts included in the scope of preventing/obstructing are acts explicitly regulated in Articles 281 and 282 of Law No. 1/2023, Article 25 UNCAC, and relevant court jurisprudence related to obstruction of investigations. Examples include helping a person escape, the use of physical force, threats, intimidation, or promising a bribe for testimony, or manipulating to avoid investigation and influencing witnesses not to attend. The Court said the phrase ‘not directly’ makes acts such as the dissemination of disinformation, social pressure, and the use of intermediaries, whose assessment is conducted subjectively by law enforcement, potentially criminal. The Court said the phrase ‘not directly’ also risks making the clause rubber. ‘To realise fair legal certainty, with the aim of preventing or avoiding the possibility that the phrase ’directly or indirectly’ is used elastically or flexibly to ensnare anyone in a position not aligned with law enforcement, such as activities by lawyers, journalists, writers, and activists in the anti-corruption agenda, the norm of Article 21 of the TIPIKOR Act needs to be harmonised with the spirit of UNCAC Article 25,’ the MK said. Based on these considerations, the MK ruled: 1. Grant the applicant’s request in part 2. State that the phrase ‘directly or indirectly’ in the norm of Article 21 of the TIPIKOR Act is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force 3. Order the inclusion of this decision in the State Gazette (Berita Negara) of the Republic of Indonesia 4. Dismiss the applicant’s requests for other reliefs and further reliefs.